Member of Commission III of the House of Representatives (DPR) M. Nasir Djamil delivered the DPR’s statement at the judicial review hearing of Law Number 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption Crimes (Anti-Corruption Law) virtually, Tuesday (9/16/2025). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA, (MKRI) – Article 14 of the Anti-Corruption Law serves as a bridging norm to provisions in other statutes that explicitly qualify an act as a corruption offense. Therefore, the Petitioner’s argument that the wording of Article 14 creates a dual understanding among courts and leads to inconsistent law enforcement is unfounded.

This was conveyed by Nasir at the fifth hearing of Case Number 123/PUU-XXIII/2025, which examined the material review of Article 14 of the Anti-Corruption Law against the 1945 Constitution. The session heard the DPR’s statement and expert testimony presented by the Petitioner.

Nasir stressed that each corruption offense already has its own criminal formulation and scope, and that Article 14 functions as a bridging norm between laws that clearly classify an act as corruption. He added that the Petitioner’s claimed loss is an issue of implementation, not constitutionality, referring to Supreme Court Decision No. 68 K/PID.SUS/2008. The Petitioner has served the sentence and paid restitution.

Building an Integrated Anti-Corruption System

According to the DPR, the Petitioner’s request to reinterpret Article 14 would weaken the effectiveness of corruption eradication. The phrase “laws that explicitly state that a violation…” leaves no room for alternative interpretation. Replacing it with “if there is” as requested by the Petitioner would create causal ambiguity and invite conflicting interpretations among law enforcers.
“Article 14 is not unconstitutional,” Nasir emphasized. “It forms a crucial foundation for an integrated anti-corruption system and applies only to violations explicitly classified as corruption crimes under criminal law.”

Linguistic and Legal Expert Views

Linguistics expert Frans Asisi noted that the predicate berlaku (“applies”) in Article 14 creates syntactic ambiguity and suggested clearer wording: ‘This law shall not apply to violations of other laws unless those laws explicitly designate the violations as corruption offenses.’

Legal scholar Aan Eko Widiarto highlighted that the phrase “explicitly states” limits the Anti-Corruption Law’s applicability to offenses where other statutes clearly designate the act as corruption. This prevents overlapping special laws and ensures legal certainty.

Aan recommended that the Court affirm the explicit meaning of the phrase “explicitly states,” so the Anti-Corruption Law applies only when another statute expressly defines an offense as corruption.

Read also:

Overlap of Anti-Corruption and Forestry Laws Questioned

Clarifying Constitutional Arguments on the Overlapping Application of the Anti-Corruption Law and the Forestry Law

Govt, House Not Ready to Testify on Corruption Eradication, Forestry Laws

Case Background

The Petitioner’s counsel, Deni Daniel, explained that his client, Adelin Lis, was convicted of corruption under Supreme Court Decision No. 68 K/PID.SUS/2008 even though the underlying violation fell under the Forestry Law (Law No. 41/1999), which does not classify the act as corruption. The contested application of the Anti-Corruption Law raised questions about legal certainty.

The principle of systematische specialiteit was discussed, underscoring that Article 14 ensures the Anti-Corruption Law applies only when another law contains a “bridging clause” that explicitly labels a violation as corruption.

Author : Sri Pujianti
Editor  : Lulu Anjarsari P.

PR       : Fauzan Febriyan

Translator: Agusweka Poltak Siregar

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version prevails

---